Cancer is the second leading cause of human death next to coronary disease. Around the world, millions of people die from cancer every year. In the United States alone, cancer cause the death of well over a half-million people each year, with some 1.4 million new cases diagnosed per year. While deaths from heart disease have been declining significantly, those resulting from cancer generally are on the rise. In the early part of the next century, cancer is predicted to become the leading cause of death.
Worldwide, several cancers stand out as the leading killers. In particular, carcinomas of the lung, prostate, breast, colon, pancreas, and ovary represent the leading causes of cancer death. These and virtually all other carcinomas share a common lethal feature. With very few exceptions, metastatic disease from a carcinoma is fatal. Moreover, even for those cancer patients that initially survive their primary cancers, common experience has shown that their lives are dramatically altered. Many cancer patients experience strong anxieties driven by the awareness of the potential for recurrence or treatment failure. Many cancer patients experience physical debilitations following treatment.
Generally speaking, the fundamental problem in the management of the deadliest cancers is the lack of effective and non-toxic systemic therapies. Molecular medicine, still very much in its infancy, promises to redefine the ways in which these cancers are managed. Unquestionably, there is an intensive worldwide effort aimed at the development of novel molecular approaches to cancer diagnosis and treatment. For example, there is a great interest in identifying truly tumor-specific genes and proteins that could be used as diagnostic and prognostic markers and/or therapeutic targets or agents. Research efforts in these areas are encouraging, and the increasing availability of useful molecular technologies has accelerated the acquisition of meaningful knowledge about cancer. Nevertheless, progress is slow and generally uneven.
Recently, there has been a particularly strong interest in identifying cell surface tumor-specific antigens which might be useful as targets for various immunotherapeutic or small molecule treatment strategies. A large number of such cell-surface antigens have been reported, and some have proven to be reliably associated with one or more cancers. Much attention has been focused on the development of novel therapeutic strategies which target these antigens. However, few truly effective immunological cancer treatments have resulted.
The use of monoclonal antibodies to tumor-specific or over-expressed antigens in the treatment of solid cancers is instructive. Although antibody therapy has been well researched for some 20 years, only very recently have corresponding pharmaceuticals materialized. One example is the humanized anti-HER2/neu monoclonal antibody, Herceptin, recently approved for use in the treatment of metastatic breast cancers overexpressing the HER2/neu receptor. Another is the human/mouse chimeric anti-CD20/B cell lymphoma antibody, Rituxan, approved for the treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Several other antibodies are being evaluated for the treatment of cancer in clinical trials or in pre-clinical research, including a fully human IgG2 monoclonal antibody specific for the epidermal growth factor receptor (Yang et al., 1999, Cancer Res. 59: 1236). Evidently, antibody therapy is finally emerging from a long embryonic phase. Nevertheless, there is still a very great need for new, more-specific tumor antigens for the application of antibody and other biological therapies. In addition, there is a corresponding need for tumor antigens which may be useful as markers for antibody-based diagnostic and imaging methods, hopefully leading to the development of earlier diagnosis and greater prognostic precision.
As discussed below, the management of prostate cancer serves as a good example of the limited extent to which molecular biology has translated into real progress in the clinic. With limited exceptions, the situation is more or less the same for the other major carcinomas mentioned above.
Worldwide, prostate cancer is the fourth most prevalent cancer in men. In North America and Northern Europe, it is by far the most common male cancer and is the second leading cause of cancer death in men. In the United States alone, well over 40,000 men die annually of this disease, second only to lung cancer. Despite the magnitude of these figures, there is still no effective treatment for metastatic prostate cancer. Surgical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, hormone ablation therapy, and chemotherapy remain as the main treatment modalities. Unfortunately, these treatments are clearly ineffective for many. Moreover, these treatments are often associated with significant undesirable consequences.
On the diagnostic front, the serum PSA assay has been a very useful tool. Nevertheless, the specificity and general utility of PSA is widely regarded as lacking in several respects. Neither PSA testing, nor any other test nor biological marker has been proven capable of reliably identifying early-stage disease. Similarly, there is no marker available for predicting the emergence of the typically fatal metastatic stage of the disease. Diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer is achieved by open surgical or laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy, whole body radionuclide scans, skeletal radiography, and/or bone lesion biopsy analysis. Clearly, better imaging and other less invasive diagnostic methods offer the promise of easing the difficulty those procedures place on a patient, as well as improving therapeutic options. However, until there are prostate tumor markers capable of reliably identifying early-stage disease, predicting susceptibility to metastasis, and precisely imaging tumors, the management of prostate cancer will continue to be extremely difficult. Accordingly, more specific molecular tumor markers are clearly needed in the management of prostate cancer.
There are some known markers which are expressed predominantly in prostate, such as prostate specific membrane antigen (PSM), a hydrolase with 85% identity to a rat neuropeptidase (Carter et al., 1996, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93: 749; Bzdega et al., 1997, J. Neurochem. 69: 2270). However, the expression of PSM in small intestine and brain (Israeli et al., 1994, Cancer Res. 54: 1807), as well its potential role in neuropeptide catabolism in brain, raises concern of potential neurotoxicity with anti-PSM therapies. Preliminary results using an Indium-111 labeled, anti-PSM monoclonal antibody to image recurrent prostate cancer show some promise (Sodee et al., 1996, Clin. Nuc. Med. 21: 759-766). More recently identified prostate cancer markers include PCTA-1 (Su et al., 1996, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93: 7252) and prostate stem cell antigen (PSCA) (Reiter et al., 1998, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95: 1735). PCTA-1, a novel galectin, is largely secreted into the media of expressing cells and may hold promise as a diagnostic serum marker for prostate cancer (Su et al., 1996). PSCA, a GPI-linked cell surface molecule, was cloned from LAPC 4 cDNA and is unique in that it is expressed primarily in basal cells of normal prostate tissue and in cancer epithelia (Reiter et al., supra). Vaccines for prostate cancer are also being actively explored with a variety of antigens, including PSM and PSA.